Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2013
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 02:30:02 +0100, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com> wrote: > Nearly every one of those is non-simple. That is not a tutorial, and it > is not just about open. It is more like "FMTEYEWTK About open() and I/O > in Perl". If the goal is to create a document that teaches people how to > use > open() for the simple cases, then there is no hope for perlopentut. It > cannot be turned into that, because that is not what it is. You have to > start over. When you started talking about Programming Perl (a reference work) in relation to perlopentut (a tutorial) i had the suspicion that the discussion had become orthogonal. Thank you for realizing that and acting upon it so quickly and in such a massively productive manner. Reading through your sketch, i like the tone a lot, as well as the contents. I especially like that it takes care to show how to read code on this subject, which is more important than learning how to write. > I'm still undecided about sysopen: should it stay or should it go? Anecdotally: I have been reading and writing Perl since early 2005 and cannot recall an instance of either reading about or writing sysopen. While i would not be bothered by seeing it remain, i do not think that removing it would do any harm. As for the sketch itself, there are a few things i noticed: > For _eveyrthing_ else, > open($handle, "< $encoding", $filename) Maybe mention that the space is optional and can be included for readability? I normally see it without. > However, if hitting EOF is an expected and normal event, you > would not ____ to exit just because you ran out of input. Instead, > use open qw< :encoding(UTF-8) >; Maybe mention in some way that this is lexically scoped? I ran out of time at this point, will read the rest and comment as appropiate later. -- With regards, Christian WaldeThread Previous | Thread Next